The Piedmont City Council has a full and important agenda at their meeting on Monday, June 2, starting at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue.

Click on items below to read staff reports.

Budget Approval Hearing; 

Staff report on budget.

Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee Report: 

Police Officer Body Cameras:

Use of WW Funds of over $500,000 for parks, senior facility, pool or other recreation purposes

Emergency Tree Removal in Blair Park 

Additional Sewer Tax 

Election Date change to State General Election Date: 

Full agenda 

At the June 2 City Council meeting, the Council is expected to place on the November 2014 ballot a City Charter change to require Piedmont’s General Election to be concurrent with the State’s General Election in November of even number years and also to change School Board reorganization dates.

A question on the proposed Charter language has arisen.

The questionable language was added to facilitate the extension of terms, but possibly could have other implications. The language states:

“They shall hold office for four (4) years or until their successor is sworn into office.”

There is the possibility that an elected candidate, prior to being sworn into office, could not serve because of death, disqualification or withdrawal. The proposed language could extend the term of a termed-out Councilmember until a successor is chosen. If there is more than one termed-out Councilmember, which one would remain on the Council “until a successor is sworn into office?”  

The language “or until their successor is sworn into office” appears to presume there is a designated seat for each elected member of the Council. In Piedmont, individuals on the Council are elected at-large by all voters.  There are no designated seats to be filled “until their successor is sworn into office.”

Current office holders on the Council and School Board will have their terms extended from March to November of their term, an approximate 8 month extension.

The changes are being made to gain greater participation in Piedmont elections, remedy School Board reorganization dates, and reduce the cost of Piedmont elections.

Read the staff report and proposed language. 

The City and School appointed liaisons, two representatives from the City Council and two from the School Board, will confer on issues of joint interest on Wednesday, June 4, 2014, 4:30 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room, 120 Vista Avenue.

The meeting is open to the public, but is not expected to be broadcast or recorded.

Listed on the agenda are:

1. Discussion of Litter Issues in Piedmont Park

2. Review of Crossing Guard Program

3. Discussion of Safety Training Coordination between Schooolmates and PUSD staff

4. Discussion of Joint Efforts to Increase Participation in the City’s Emergency Notification System

5. Discussion of School District Landscaping Needs

6. Discussion of Enforcement of Use Restrictions on School Property

7. Update on Results of the June 2, 2014 Election

8. Schedule of Future Meetings – Agenda Topics

No meeting materials have been made available.

 

New sources of revenue for sanitary sewers are sought despite years of diverting funds away from the Sewer Fund for other City purposes.

At a recent Council meeting, the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee (BAFPC) made recommendations to seek new sources of revenue to pay for remaining renovations to the City’s aged sanitary sewer pipes.  The recommendations included:

1. A Sewer Tax surcharge of 20 – 25% for two to three years.

2. A temporary Real Estate Property Transfer Tax surcharge of $2 -$3 per $1000 of sale price

3. A $1.2 to$1.4 million loan from the General Fund to the Sewer Fund

Piedmont property owners have for decades been paying into the Piedmont Sewer Fund via their property tax bills and provided ample funds to cover EPA required renovations and maintenance of the sanitary sewer pipes. However, starting many years ago, much of the Sewer Fund money was diverted to pay for various General Fund activities, such as maintaining the storm water system and street sweeping. The sanitary sewer system is separate from the storm water system. Since the Sewer Fund was used as a revenue source for the storm water system and undefined public works activities, the General Fund was relieved of paying for these and other   standard City services.

The assignment of storm water expenses to the Sewer Fund has had little recognition by those assessing the need for “new taxes” such as increased property taxes, property transfer taxes, or debt instruments including loans. The draw down of funds from the Sewer Fund transferred to the General Fund has been largely unknown to property owners, who now might be asked by the City for more taxes through an upcoming ballot measure.

Piedmonters, in general, have appeared eager to comply with EPA decrees and requirements.   The transfer of Sewer Fund money to the General Fund has raised questions.

When looking at Public Works Department employee positions, significant costs are attributed to the Sewer Fund without backup information to support hours worked or projects completed by certain public works positions.

The City’s reserves have recently grown providing funds to support projected emergencies and general maintenance, while the Sewer Fund continues to have its funds transferred to support the General Fund activities.

Some have stated that transferring money to the General Fund from the Sewer Fund has allowed the City to enhance playfields, parks, and provide more services.

– Budget Hearing June 2 –

Changes to a recommended Budget are rarely made at the Council’s public hearings, as most of the actual work on the Budget has already been done during the Budget Workshop.  These workshops are held away from broadcast systems in the Police Emergency Operations Center and are not available for public viewing. 

The public will have an opportunity to voice opinions on the sewer issue and the entire Budget at the Council’s June 2 Budget Hearing. As required by the City Charter, this is the first of two public hearings.

Staff report on Sewer Fund.

Monday,  June 2 – 7:30 p.m. City Council Chambers-

An annual Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) fee of $9.55  per residential unit was approved on a 12-3 vote with 2 absences by the 17 member Alameda County Waste Management Authority (WMA) Board. The fee will be placed on Alameda County property tax statements.

Prior fees generated from solid waste going to county landfills have been significantly reduced as waste has been diverted by recycling. A new source of income was sought by the Authority to maintain and improve the  hazardous waste disposal program in the county.

Did the Piedmont City Council take a position on the HHW fee or direct its representative how to vote on the fee?

July 15, 2013, Council minutes indicate that Planning Technician Feeley reported on HHW fee options being developed by Stopwaste.org staff. In the March 17, 2014 minutes Councilmember Rood announced that Stopwaste.org will receive the protest votes against the $9.55 annual HHW fee and the Board would vote on whether or not to impose the surcharge. April 7, 2014 minutes –Councilmember Rood announced that Stopwaste.org continued consideration of the $9.55 HHW fee to the April 23 meeting. Council action was not found in Council minutes.

Questions had been raised regarding the legal right of the Authority to place a fee on property tax statements without gaining voter approval.  Approximately 50,000 individuals protested the fee.

“Critics contend the proposed fee is unnecessary, and so is the agency trying to collect it.”

Voting against the fee were Don Biddle of the Dublin City Council, Dave Sadoff of the Castro Valley Sanitary District and Jerry Pentin of the Pleasanton City Council. Piedmont’s representative on the Authority, Councilmember Tim Rood, voted to approve the fee.

Laython Landis, a long time WMA Board member representing the Oro Loma Sanitary District, has watched the Authority grow to a $24 million operation with 42 employees. Landis stated the entire Waste Management Authority, also known as StopWaste.org, is inefficient and should be dismantled.

Read reports on the fee and StopWaste.

Alameda County Waste Management Authority News Release:

Expanded hours for drop-off facilities and public events will increase collection of hazardous materials for Alameda County residents.

OAKLAND – At its May 28th meeting, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority Board adopted a new household hazardous waste fee of $9.55 per year per residential unit. The fee goes into effect July 1, 2014 and will be collected via the property tax roll.

Revenue from the fee will be used to support the countywide household hazardous waste program, which provides safe, legal, environmentally sound collection and disposal services for residential household hazardous waste such as paint, solvents and pesticides. The fee will support expanded services to all residents in Alameda County, including additional and regular drop-off hours and mobile collection events held throughout the county.

“The decision to move forward with a new fee was a challenging one for our Board and Agency, and some members of the public as well,” said Alameda County Waste Management Authority (dba StopWaste) Board Vice-President Jennifer West. “But the consequences of not adopting it and improper disposal of hazardous wastes were too great.” Authority Executive Director Gary Wolff added, “Owners of residences will benefit from the expanded services this fee will provide by keeping hazardous waste where it belongs. Improper disposal not only harms people and the environment, but could result in future sewer or garbage rate increases larger than the fee due to illegal disposal into sewers or garbage or recycling containers.”

The HHW collection program is currently paid for through a per-ton fee on municipal solid waste disposed in landfills. However, the fee has not changed since 2000 and the program would have been cut back dramatically without the additional funding.

Read an additional report on the fee.

New Information on Havens Provided.

As an employee of the Piedmont Unified School District familiar with the rebuilding of Havens Elementary School, it was with great interest that I read the comments of E Boyer, who wrote the following as part of an opinion piece in The Piedmont Post (“Just Kidding…But Seriously – The Jackass Category”) dated May 21, 2014:

“With Havens, we were all told, an epic collapse crushing all of the children inside was surely just ahead.”

Infact, the Division of the State Architect (DSA), the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC), and the State Allocation Board (SAB) all concurred in 2013 that the most appropriate word to describe the collapse hazard posed by two kindergarten wings (that actually housed over fifty percent of the Havens student population) was, in fact, catastrophic. Not “epic.” Not “shenanigans.” Not “fear mongering.” Not “a slow and painful death ‘neath the rubble of the collapsed one-story, wood framed building as it came down in apocalyptic fury!” (to quote E Boyer’s blog). No, the word they all agreed upon to describe the collapse hazard at Havens was “catastrophic.” Furthermore, the SAB identified these very same wings as an example of the “Most Vulnerable Category 2 Building…determined by the department to pose an unacceptable risk of injury to its occupants in the event of a seismic event.”

The SAB was definitive in its corroboration of engineering reports calculating “the building’s structural system [as] greatly overstressed and likely to fail.” The risk of injury associated with the Havens wings, according to every agency involved with public school construction in the State of California, was deemed to be unacceptable. Not just an unacceptable risk of injury for children, but an unacceptable risk for everyone: children, teachers, staff, parents, volunteers, visitors, and satirists.

But wait, there’s more. The kindergarten wings at Havens were designed by a prominent architecture firm in the 1950’s, and were replicated many times over throughout California. In other words, these same hazardous buildings exist today in other school districts. Prior to 2012 (two years after Havens was rebuilt), the Division of the State Architect refused to publicly acknowledge the tension rod-bracing system found in these type of buildings is insufficient to withstand a significant earthquake. What changed DSA’s mind? Piedmonters.

Two years after Havens was rebuilt, Piedmonters testified in statewide hearings before Senator Ellen Corbett to address lax oversight of seismic inspections, safety certifications, and restrictive funding rules. Two years after Havens was rebuilt, Piedmonters worked with Senator Loni Hancock to assist other school districts in breaking through draconian restrictions defining seismic vulnerability, amending Proposition 1D as originally written into law in 2006.

My purpose in sharing this is twofold: first, that no matter how inconvenient the truth, the removal of students, teachers, and staff (and the subsequent demolition of the Havens wings) was essential to the safety of its occupants; second, to offer thanks to so many in this community for their willingness to think (and act) beyond the borders of Piedmont.

Through the efforts of Piedmont residents in their roles as school board members, architects, structural engineers, financial advisors, construction law attorneys, accountants, designers, builders, Citizens’ Oversight Committee members, and community activists, there have been profound changes at the State level in assessing and addressing seismic safety in public schools.

If working with conscientious Piedmont residents for the betterment of all children in California (you can add SB1404 and “Educate Our State” to the list of Piedmonter-led initiatives – just to name two) is what defines being a jackass, I am all for it. Call me a jackass. Seriously. I’m not just kidding.

Michael Brady, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services for the Piedmont Unified School District

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  Comments are welcomed below.

It’s not too late to sign up!  

Alameda County is in need of poll workers for next week’s election.   Workers are paid for their service and bilingual workers get an additional stipend.  Please see the link below for more information:

http://www.acgov.org/rov/workers.htm

Those with questions may contact Amy Shrago, Health & Legislative Policy Analyst, in the office of Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson, at 510-272-6695 or Amy.Shrago@acgov.org

The City has enough money to pay for sewers.

I listened with interest to the Piedmont City Council’s discussion on financing future sewer projects at its May 19^th meeting.  In response to the Council’s request for community input, I have the following comments:

The Council should explain why voters were asked to pass an $11 million tax for sewer repairs a little over two years ago, and after that measure failed, are now considering a $1.2 million tax measure to complete the very same work.  This is a significant issue and needs to be addressed, particularly if the Council chooses to place a tax on the November ballot.

The Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee’s recommendation is that the Sewer Fund needs a one-time infusion of cash of at least $1,000,000 over the next 3 years to maintain a prudent Sewer Fund balance.  The Fund would then have the seed money to proceed with replacing all the remaining substandard sewer lines during the next 20 years.  In my judgment, the Council should fund this request out of current general fund revenues. Instead, the Council is considering seeking passage of a tax measure which would increase most homeowners’ property taxes from $120 to $150 a year for 3 years or by adding a surcharge to the already steep real estate transfer tax.

The City has an annual general fund budget of approximately $22 million.  Allocating two percent a year to this project for three years would produce over $1.3 million.  As of June 30, 2013, the City had over $10 million in reserves, including over $4 million undesignated and an additional $4 million set aside for capital improvements and equipment replacement.  Why not use a portion of these funds to loan to the Sewer Fund rather than requesting an additional tax?  If reserves are inadequate, the Council should address that issue in a comprehensive way, not by this piecemeal approach.

Al Peters, Former Mayor of Piedmont

May 22, 2014

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  Comments are welcomed below.